Re: [Gimp-developer] Tuning and choosing resampling methods in GEGL/GIMP

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Elle Stone
<ellestone ninedegreesbelow com> wrote:
Agreeing with what you say, I've tried lohalo and never saw any reason to
use it instead of nohalo. For several years now nohalo is the only
downsizing method that I use.

I see in the git log that some changes have been made recently to nohalo. I
haven't used the new version of nohalo, and also haven't added these changes
to my "CCE" version of GIMP. The reason I mention this is because even
though nohalo (the older version of nohalo) is slow, it produces results
that are exceptionally good.

The recent GEGL commit 0b0ecbb67198d6318ed163522e5233ecbc18ff25 mentions
slightly sharper results for nohalo: "for sigificant downsampling this might
result in sharper/aliased results".

This "sharper/aliased results" doesn't sound like a good thing, at least not
for my particular workflow. I don't use a lot of sharpening in my workflow,
and I prefer to do any required post-downsizing sharpening by hand, using
masks and layers, and using either unsharp mask or high pass sharpening, on
an image by image basis.

Would there be the possibility of parameters with the revised nohalo that
would allow to replicate the old results?

This is what an adaptively increasing the OFFSET0 constant for
significant downscaling in the sources might achieve - do note that
what is meant by significant downscaling here is when scaling down to
below 1% of original size - even in such scenarios nohalo will already
be doing a good job. I believe that even without further enhancement
we should use nohalo as the default sampler.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]